ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Comparing methods for handling missing data in electronic health records for dynamic risk prediction of central-line associated bloodstream infection.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A tool based on objective data to identify patients at elevated risk of hospital-onsetAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning model for predicting cesarean section following induction of labor: Development and external validation using real-world data.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health records (EHR) often contain varying levels of missing data. This study aimed to compare different imputation strategies to identify the most appropriate missing data handling approach for predicting central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) in the presence of competing risks using EHR data.
methodsWe analyzed data from 30,862 catheter episodes at University Hospitals Leuven from 2012 to 2013 to predict 7-day risk of CLABSI using the landmark cause-specific supermodel, accounting for competing risks of hospital discharge and death. Imputation strategies varied from simple methods (median/mode and last observation carried forward) to advanced techniques such as multiple imputation and mixed-effects models that leveraged the longitudinal nature of the data. Random forest imputation which preserves interactions and non-linear relationships was also assessed. We also considered the use of missing indicators combined with all other imputation approaches. Model performance was evaluated dynamically at daily landmarks up to 14 days after catheter placement.
resultsAll approaches achieved similar discrimination, calibration and overall performance, with the missing indicator approach yielding the highest mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC 0.782). Combining missing indicators with other methods marginally improved performance over standalone approaches, with the mixed model approach combined with missing indicators achieving the highest AUROC (0.783) at landmark day 4, and the missForestPredict approach combined with missing indicators yielding the best scaled Brier scores at earlier landmarks.
conclusionsThe imputation method had minimal impact on predictive performance. Missing indicator methods ranked first among the methods, suggesting that in EHR data, the presence or absence of information may hold valuable insights for patient risk prediction. On the other hand, the use of missing indicators requires caution, as shifts in EHR data over time can alter missing data patterns, potentially impacting model transportability.
trial registrationClinical trial number: not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.